IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3468 of 2024

17^th DAY OF MARCH, 2026 Between:

Thota Uma Maheshwara Rao.

…Petitioner AND M. Venu.

...Respondent

ORDER:

Heard Sri D. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2024 in I.A.No.437 of 2022 in O.S.No.11 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, (‘trial Court’), wherein a petition filed under Sections 33 and 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (‘the Stamp Act’), for impounding of insufficient stamp of agreement of sale dated 15.11.2018 has been allowed directing to impound said agreement by sending it to the concerned District Registrar for collection of stamp duty and penalty.

3. The background facts of the case are that the petitioner/respondent/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.11.2018 and for perpetual injunction with respect to subject property consisting of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.23-25 guntas situated at Chikepally Village and Grama Panchayat, Jharasangam Mandal, Medak District. The said land is situated in various survey numbers. The respondent/petitioner/defendant disputed the execution of agreement of sale as being unambiguous, not enforceable and that it is a loan transaction, but not agreement of sale. Further, it is the case of the respondent that the agreement of sale dated 15.11.2008 is insufficiently stamped and that no possession was delivered. Further, according to respondent, an insufficiently stamped document requires payment of stamp duty at 5% of value of the property or the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement of sale whichever is higher as per Article 6 Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act. Therefore, sought sending of the document for impounding.

4. The petitioner claims that the petition to impound the agreement of sale is filed only to harass and only to protract the proceedings. The agreement of sale dated 15.01.2018 is genuine and the issue of whether it is enforceable or not cannot be adjudicated in an interlocutory application. Further, it is contended that the respondent on one hand is disputing the agreement of sale as forged one and on the other hand is claiming the same to be a loan transaction. According to the petitioner, the agreement of sale is properly stamped and where the value exceeds Rs.50,000/-, Rs.100/- is sufficient and therefore, the agreement of sale does not require further payment of stamp duty.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the agreement of sale is with respect to open agricultural lands where there is no construction and whenever the agreement of sale is with respect to open lands the same is to be paid under Article 6-A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act and not under Article 6-B of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the stamp duty paid is sufficient.

6. Reliance is placed upon judgment of this Court in the case of Shaik Jani Pasha v. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 632, wherein it is held that when the agreement of sale is with respect to open lands and no constructions are existing in such land, it is Article 6-A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act which applies but not Article 6-B. On the basis of aforementioned citation, it is contented that the agreement of sale which is executed on a Rs.100/- stamp paper is sufficient and there is no further need for payment of stamp duty. As such, the order passed by the learned trial Court is to be set aside.

7. As per judgment in the case of Media Anasuyamma v. Choppela Lakshmamma, 1991 (1) ALT 430, the stamp duty payable is at the rate prevailing at the time of its execution, but not presentation. That being the case, the stamp duty payable on agreement of sale dated 15.11.2018 has to be as on the